Why It Rains

Written by Herb Rose

Woman and rain shower stock image. Image of girl, umbrella ...

image source: dreamstime.com

The current theory on how rain forms is that water evaporates from the surface of the Earth, becomes a gas that rises in the atmosphere, and due to cold temperatures and nuclei condenses in rain drops that then fall to the Earth.

The problem with this theory is that according to the evidence it can’t happen that way.

The amount of water that the air can hold depends on the temperature of the air. The air does not become super saturated with water so when the water in the air reaches the saturation point it condenses and drops out of the air.

The temperature at the troposphere-stratosphere boundary where rain clouds form is -50 C and the saturation point of water is approximately .1 gram H2O/kilogram of air. At an altitude of 7km the temperature is –30 C and the saturation of water is .3 grams/kg of air. At an altitude of 4km the temperature is -10 C and the saturation is 1.8 grams H2O/kg of air. Since the amount of water in the air, the concentration of nuclei, and the density of the air is decreasing with altitude why aren’t water droplets and cloud forming lower in the atmosphere?

What's that cloud? - Social Media Blog - Bureau of Meteorology

At the troposphere-stratosphere boundary, if the temperature is -50 C why are the droplets forming as liquid water instead of ice? The current theory asserts that clouds are composed of super cooled water but super cooling is not that simple. Water must be pure and undisturbed. The nuclei thought to cause the water to condense would also initiate the formation of ice crystals and the turbulence of rain clouds would cause super cooled water to instantly freeze solid.

The state of water is a result of the balance between the kinetic energy of the water molecules and the attractive force between the molecules. When the kinetic energy is greater than the attractive force, water is a gas, when they are equal it is a liquid, and when the attractive force is greater than the kinetic energy water crystallizes into ice. The fact that clouds contain liquid water droplets shows that the thermometer used to measure their temperature is inaccurate at measuring kinetic energy.

Kelvin – Celsius – Fahrenheit | Know-It-All

When dealing with energy the usual practice is to use the Kelvin scale (see above) where there are no negative values and 0 K represents where an object has no kinetic energy. The problem with the Kelvin scale is that uses the same inaccurate thermometer that the centigrade scale uses.

These thermometers are calibrated using the properties of water but this causes inaccuracies when dealing with energy. The thermometer reads 0 C for ice and when you add 80 calories/gram it still reads 0 C. It takes 100 calories/gram to raise the temperature to 100 C but then another 540 calories/gram to cause the water to boil and become a gas even though the thermometer still reads 100 C. Of the 720 calories/gram of energy added to the water the thermometer only records 14%.

Even the size of a calorie (the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree C) changes depending on the initial temperature of the water. It makes no sense to calibrate an instrument to measure kinetic energy when it misses so much energy and its accuracy varies.

What Is the Kelvin Temperature Scale?

A new scale is needed for dealing with energy and it should be based on the amount of energy added to a system. The units for this new scale are Kal which is a combination of the Kelvin scale and calories (A calorie is1/100 the energy needed to raise 0 C water to 100 C water). 173 Kal is the temperature of 0 C ice. 253 Kal (173 Kal + 80 calories) is the temperature of 0 C water.

353 Kal would be the temperature of 100 C water while 893 Kal (353 Kal + 540 calories) would be the boiling point of water. This scale is better able to represent the energy contained in a system.

How would we determine the energy of a system if a thermometer cannot be used? For the atmosphere the universal gas law (PV=nrt) will give the kinetic energy of the molecules at different altitudes. In an unconfined gas, like the atmosphere, the pressure (gravity) can be considered as a constant and any change in kinetic energy will result in a change of volume.

The density of the atmosphere at different altitudes measures the number of molecules (n) for a given volume. The inverse of the density gives the volume (V) of a constant number of molecules. If a base Kal level is established the ratio of the density at that altitude to other altitudes times the base Kal should give a comparison of the kinetic energy of the molecules at different altitudes.

Stratosphere & Troposphere ~ Climate change

When this is done it shows that the energy of molecules increases with altitude (density decreases). The energy increases at a steady rate in the troposphere, then rises exponential in the higher atmosphere levels. The reason for this is that water is a liquid in the troposphere and converts to a gas in the stratosphere.

Why would energy increase with altitude if the surface of the Earth is heating the atmosphere by converting visible light to infrared radiation?

The Earth is not heating the atmosphere, the sun is (hence the increase kinetic energy with altitude). People maintain that because the visible and infrared spectrums pass through the atmosphere unaffected that the sun is not heating the oxygen, argon, and nitrogen in the atmosphere but this is nonsense.

Oxygen and nitrogen absorb most of the high energy ultraviolet light coming from the sun. In the upper atmosphere this energy splits the molecules (940 kjoules/mole for N2 and 490 kjoules/ mole for oxygen) and converts it to kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules creating the ionosphere.

The ozone layer in the stratosphere is a result of uv light breaking oxygen molecules into oxygen atoms, some of which combine with oxygen molecules to form ozone. Wherever in the atmosphere uv light encounters these gas molecules the uv light will be converted into kinetic energy. The sun is heating the atmosphere and the atmosphere is heating the Earth.

What evidence is there to back this claim up?

The visible light and infrared spectrums are emitted from the sun’s surface while uv and x-rays are emitted from solar flares. When sun spots disappear during their normal cycle the change in the visible spectrum is only .1% but the change in the Earth’s climate is dramatic. This shows that it is the uv light that is transferring most of the energy to heat the Earth, not visible light.

Astronomical Thoughts: 2012

If the kinetic energy increases with altitude how does rain form and why does it occur at the troposphere-stratosphere interface?

To understand this, the strange properties of water must be understood. James McGinn has pointed out that water cannot exist as a gas below its boiling point (893 Kal). Since liquid water molecules exist close together (little compressibility) and are constantly colliding with neighboring molecules it is not possible for a water molecule to have that large of a difference in kinetic energy from its neighbors and convert to a gas until all the water molecules have gained most of the energy needed to become steam.

James’ proposal that water evaporates as nano-droplets of liquid water makes sense and explains why the troposphere can absorb so much energy from the sun (unlike gases). To understand how water evaporates it is necessary to examine the experiments of Dr. Gerald Pollack.

99% of Your Molecules are Water | MalagaBay

image source: malagabay.wordpress.com

When water is contained in a hydrophilic or polar container, the structure of the water next to this surface changes.  Dr. Pollack identifies this as a fourth phase of water and calls it the E Z zone. The water in this zone will expel colloidal particles and even salt ions making a clear layer of fresh water in a container of salt water.

When electrodes are inserted into the E Z zone and the main body of water a current flows indicating this structure is a result of ions. The negative charge of the E Z zone is a result of hydroxyl ions combining with water molecules to form structures with liquid water and positive hydrogen ion in the body of the water.

When radiated energy (particularly IR) is applied to the container the E Z zone increases in size which indicates that more water molecules disassociate into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions forming a stronger crystal structure.

Dr. Pollack has stated that a more appropriate name for this water phase is a liquid crystal where an object has properties of both a liquid and crystal.

When water evaporates or sublimates the energy coming from the sun creates a droplet with a negative crystal surface and a positively charged center. It is the repelling force between the crystal shell and the surface of the Earth that causes the water droplet to rise in the atmosphere. As it rises it absorbs more energy from the sun acquiring an even stronger crystal shell with a greater negative charge.

A liquid crystal has two melting points. For water the first is at 173 Kal while the second is between 353 Kal and the boiling point (893 Kal). The crystal melts before the water boils and when it melts the electric and kinetic energy contained in the droplet is released causing the turbulence and electrical activity in the clouds.

This mechanism explains why water, with its low molecular weight, is confined to the troposphere and does not evaporate into space. Water is absorbing energy in the troposphere, moderating the air temperature, and then conveying that energy to the stratosphere where it is released and can be radiated into space.


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

 

Comments (24)

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Herb…
    Your theory[hypothesis] sounds very good to me.
    I await the attempts to debunk your article.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Herb, what the heck does this mean? “A calorie is1/100 the energy needed to raise 0 C water to 100 C water”

    You have consistently demonstated you do not understand how a thermometer works. For some reason you refuse to learn. A thermometer does NOT measure total energy. It does NOT measure enthalpy, or latent heat. It only measures “TEMPERATURE”.

    Your newly invented “Kal” would not measure enthalpy or latent heat either. It neglects the amount of mass being considered.

    Again, study “temperature”, “enthalpy”, and “latent heat”.

    • Avatar

      Ddwieland

      |

      The sentence you quote is unfortunately mistaken, missing the importance of mass, which is correctly stated earlier in the article. But Herb’s point is that temperature doesn’t represent energy input, because latent heat represents energy input or output that doesn’t register on a thermometer. Why the disdain?

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Sorry Ddwieland, but there is more wrong with Herb’s sentence than just the missing mass. And, he has confused you over what his point is.

        Like Herb, you appear to have disdain for science and accuracy. Why?

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Geran is correct.
        Herb has a problem understanding the difference between these two formulas:

        K.E. = (3/2)kT
        PV = NkT

        For one, N (number of particles) is important, but not for the other.

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Herb and PSI Readers,,

    Herb began: “The current theory on how rain forms is that water evaporates from the surface of the Earth, becomes a gas that rises in the atmosphere, and due to cold temperatures and nuclei condenses in rain drops that then fall to the Earth.”

    This is not the conventionally accepted theory. “What?” you, a reader, may ask and then state:. “What Herb wrote seems pretty conventional to me.”

    So I will review a portion of what I consider to be the conventionally accepted theory. ‘The current theory on how rain forms is that water evaporates from the surface of the Earth as a gas (water molecules) and once in the atmosphere that these water molecules are lifted upward by the atmosphere due to the principle of buoyancy. Where, higher in the atmosphere the atmosphere’s temperature has decreased, as explained by another conventional theory.’

    If one ignores the mechanism of buoyancy, the difference between what I have just written and what Herb wrote is quite subtle and therefore maybe unimportant.

    Herb is correct, that eventually these water molecules condense on the surfaces of nuclei (tiny, tiny liquid or solid atmospheric particles) to form the clouds we commonly seen. And Herb’s conventional theory suggests that these clouds, once formed, immediately precipitate.

    However, a meteorologist, R. C. Sutcliffe in his book (Weather and Climate, 1966) wrote: “Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation stage is ever reached. have a profound effect on our climate.”

    This difference between what Herb wrote and what Sutcliffe wrote is not subtle. And it might be important.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Excellent! Kudos to Herb for writing this and to John O. for publishing on this topic–a topic that is typically dismissed and otherwise maligned with misinformation.

    There are two ways the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere has been misrepresented by factions in science. There is one that many skeptics are aware of and it involves the insertion of drama into our understanding of the physical characteristics of CO2. This has been put forth my climatologists relatively recently. The second was put forth by meteorologists in the 1840s. It involves the deliberate dismissal of the dramatic and unexplained physical characteristics of H2O.

    Why Are Storms Wet?
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16841
    The real reason water is involved with storms isn’t simple. Convection is one of those notions that people want to believe because it seems simple. It’s actually impossible. And there are no simple alternatives.

    Understanding water’s correct role in the atmosphere is the most important concept for understanding storms and atmospheric flow, including jet streams. Water’s role in the atmosphere has to do with its surface tension, not convection.

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    • Avatar

      Tuck Fard

      |

      real tuck fard right here

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    Herb Rose

    You should study some real science before speculating on your own internal fairy tales.

    You make totally false statements (out of ignorance) and present them as facts. Real scientists unlike you and your goofy crackpot friend James “the crackpot” McGinn kind of understand concepts that are beyond your first grade comprehension. Sorry to be blunt but you really don’t have a clue about much.

    YOU CLAIM: ” Since liquid water molecules exist close together (little compressibility) and are constantly colliding with neighboring molecules it is not possible for a water molecule to have that large of a difference in kinetic energy from its neighbors and convert to a gas until all the water molecules have gained most of the energy needed to become steam.”

    Complete BS. I can make up all kinds of stupid things and get people on this blog to believe it. The science education is terrible.

    Here is the real science, something you dare on research. Why? You will find out you are a crackpot who makes things up.

    https://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch14/liquids.php

    “Even at temperatures well below the boiling point of a liquid, some of the particles are moving fast enough to escape from the liquid.”

  • Avatar

    JaKo

    |

    Hi Herb,
    As much as I’d like to quarrel with many issues in your article — I did watch this Dr. Pollack’s video about water and, I must confess, even though I knew of many peculiarities of this most common and most important compound, I was taken in awe — “EZ” — what a concept!

    I wonder: will we ever know enough about something as common as water?

    How about Jerry, what do you think about this — this is exactly in your field ~ physical chemistry!

    So thanks Herb for pointing this out!

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi JaKo,

    I am well aware Pollack’s EZ and have emailed both him and his grad student without receiving any reply.

    R. C. Sutcliffe (Weather and Climate) has noted that cloud in an atmosphere whose measured relative humidity is significantly lower than 90% and maybe even below 80% is a quite common observation. And based on this common observation he concluded that some condensation nuclei are hydroscopic [have an attraction for water molecules].

    So I explain here (to establish a date of my idea) that I consider such condensation nuclei to be tiny solid particles capable of ‘hydrogen bonding’ with water molecules on its solid surface. So first the surface will be covered with a mono-layer of water molecules whose ‘movements’ become like that of the molecules on the surface of an ice crystal. Hence, another mono-layer is formed on ‘somewhat’ rigid molecules of the first layer. Hence, water molecules continue to condense on this particle as if it were ice above the melting point of ice.

    Of course, there is a limit to the number of layers which can be formed because the ‘latent’ heat of the formation of a hydrogen bond must increase the temperature of the particle. Which in turn must warm the surrounding atmosphere whose temperature must increase at the same the time the concentration of ‘free’ water molecules in the surrounding atmosphere is being decreased. Hence, this mechanism further reduces the atmosphere’s relative humidity.

    Now a fact is in my back yard experiments I have observed large area (maybe 3mm in diameter, deep (more than 1mm) puddles of dew) to form on a glass surface when the relative humidity measured by an inexpensive weather station was in the 80% range and that measured by the weather service’s instrument at the airport less than 3 miles distant was similar.

    And at the same time there was no dew forming on a polyethylene film right beside the glass surface.

    So, I must accept Pollack’s EZ observations even though his liquid water and my condensed dew is not pure water. The dew must have dissolved carbon dioxide in it or at least in a shallow surface layer of the dew in contact with the atmosphere.

    I give these details because I consider they are important.

    I have proof read and corrected several things that I did not intend. But I know that doesn’t mean there are no others.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    I wonder if the solubility of CO2 was considered in this review?
    Carbon dioxide easily joins with water to form carbonic acid, so the drops of H2O – no matter how small – should reflect the additional weight of the combined acid. How does this affect the buoyancy of moisture in the air?
    One reason I ask this is because the huge bush fires recently experienced in SE Australia have now been followed by wide spread rain.

    • Avatar

      JaKo

      |

      Hi Robert,
      As I understand(?) this carbonic acid business — very few (ppm) of CO2 molecules dissolved in water would dissociate (First Ionization Constant from May of 1940!) And that also depends on conditions (temperature & pressure) and impurities.

      • Avatar

        Robert Beatty

        |

        Hi Jako,
        As I read this reference in combination with the CO2 solubility graph at https://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbonic-acid/ the pH is critical.
        Rain starts off as neutral distilled water at 7.0 pH, where 70% resides as the bicarbonate radicle. 30% of CO2 is dissolved in the liquid as carbonic acid, which starts to lower the pH. As the pH drops to around 5.5, the acid fraction reaches 95% and the bicarbonate radicle reaches a minimum value of 5%.
        That is why rain lands as acid water capable of dissolving and oxidising rocks, but is neutralised by near complete conversion to the bicarbonate radicle when it reaches sea water at a pH of 8.2

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Robert,
      The solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature. When hydrocarbons burn they produce both CO2 and H2O. The amount of water that the air can hold increases with increasing temperature so it could be that the fires produced both water and heat creating higher levels of water in the air that condensed out as the air cooled.
      Herb

      • Avatar

        Robert Beatty

        |

        Hi Herb,
        Temperature is certainly an important consideration. I remember when Mount Pinatubo exploded in 1991 releasing hot pyroclastic flows, SO2, CO2 and water vapour which shot 40km high into the atmosphere. Here it cooled, the steam condensed, dissolved some of the gasses, and rained back to earth together with rock dust from the eruption.
        The parallel here is the hot bushfire gases would also cool with height and should then operate chemically at near to the ambient temperature.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi JaKo and Robert,

      Some time ago, when Robert began referring to Henry’s Law and carbon dioxide I knew the carbon dioxide was not an inert gas like nitrogen and oxygen. So I reviewed my inorganic chemistry.

      This is what if found (Inorganic Chemistry by Kleinberg, Argersinger, and Griswold): “Carbon dioxide is soluble in water to the extent of about 0.1% at 22.6C and i atm pressure. Up to about 5 atmospheres the aqueous solubility is almost directly proportional to the pressure; about 5 atmospheres of carbon dioxide pressure the solubulity is greater than that calculated by Henry’s law.” [Here I must state that I understand that the authors first refer to 1atm pressure of the the natural atmosphere and then switch to the actual pressure of carbon dioxide gas.] “Aqueous solutions of carbon dioxide are slightly acidic as a result of the formation of carbonic acid which function as a diprotic acid. [Weak acids with two dissociation equations which I do not bother to copy]

      For what comes next is the important part. “The dissociation constants cited above are calculated on the assumption that all the carbon dioxide in solution is present as carbonic acid. As a matter of fact, however, less than 1% of the carbon dioxide in solution is present as carbonic acid.”

      I do not know much but I cannot find any mention of how it is known that only 1% of the carbon dioxide reacts to form carbonic acid molecules. I know what is used to calculatie the two dissociation constant is a pH meter to measure the pH of the solution as the solution is titrated with a strong base (sodium hydroxide). And to calculate the constant requires the starting concentration of the carbonic acid molecules be known. Hence the assumption.

      I know that someone had an accepted idea the the vapor pressure of a liquid droplet was a function of the surface’s curvature. Which during the 1990’s some theorists concluded that the condensation nuclei could not grow to ordinary cloud droplet size without that atmosphere becoming super saturated with water vapor.

      But physical chemists know that nonvolatile solutes dissolved in solvent lowers the solvent’s vapor pressure proportional to the concentration of the dissolved solute. Clearly the carbonic acid molecules cannot be considered to be a nonvolatile solute, but the hydrogen carbonate ion and the carbonate can be.

      And another atmospheric condensation nuclei has been considered to be tiny, tiny crystals of sodium chloride (salt). At the time I was pondering the pondering the ‘growth’ of a tiny, tiny water solution droplet, I never considered (thought of carbon dioxide. What I questioned was what did these atmospheric scientist consider to be the concentration of salt in the droplet? I assumed they probably considered a ‘bulk’ concentration.

      For we observe that atoms (mercury) and water droplets do any amazing thing. When the droplets are small enough it appears the droplets are nearly perfect spheres. We sometimes explain this observation by stating the ‘force’ (?) is surface tension without going to a more fundamental and simpler explanation. Which I consider is that the atoms, or molecules, are arranging themselves to minimize the surface area (the number of surface atoms or molecules actually of the surface of the droplet. Which we know from math is a sphere which has the maximum volume with a minimum surface area.

      At some time in my introduction to chemistry classes, I usually told my students that pure water droplet had two kinds of water molecule.s and asked the class: What are these two different water molecules?

      “the true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination. (Albert Einstein) And I ask the questions: Why are carbonic acid molecules only stable in water solution? And if this is the case: Why do only 1% of carbon dioxide molecules, dissolved in water, actually react with water molecules to form carbonic acid molecules?

      What I claim to know is that carbonic acid molecule has a relative molecular mass of 62, carbon dioxide 44, and water 18. Therefore, according to the kinetic theory of gases, water molecules have the great speed of movement, And water molecules can hydrogen bond with carbonic acid molecules but they cannot hydrogen bond with carbon dioxide molecules. And when a water molecule hydrogen bonds with a carbonic acid molecule, this particles relative molecular mass becomes 80. And this larger molecule, on the surface, reduces the number of water molecules on the surface of a spherical droplet. If you are not following my imagination, I doubt if more words will help.

      But there are two other observations which I doubt if many will question. We know that when ‘pure’ water is cooled to near O, its density begins to decrease. And the only explanation of this observed fact is this due to hydrogen bonding between water molecules.

      But I read that if one cools sea (salt) water is decrease of density is not observed. And I am reasonably sure that the James McGinn would agree that ion-dipole attractions between ions and water molecules disrupts the hydrogen bonding between water molecules.

      The other observation is the meteorologist R. C. Sutcliffe reports that clouds exist in atmospheres whose relative humidity is measured to be well below 100%. And I doubt if that any dissolved salt can exist in a common cloud droplet of a size far greater than the tiny droplet which atmospheric scientists were questioning if the droplet could grow larger with the atmosphere’s relative humidity becoming greater than a 100%.

      Because Robert and I know that the droplet will be saturated with carbon dioxide according to Henry’s Law. I conclude these cloud droplets which exist when the RH of the surrounding atmosphere is well below 100%, must not contain many ions. Instead it is carbonic acid molecules on the droplet’s surface that hydrogen bond with surface water molecules and thereby reduce the vapor pressure of the droplet to the droplet can be in equilibrium with the water molecules which is not saturated with water molecules.

      I put down this pondering at this time to make it a matter of public record since you two seem interested in better understanding the possible role that atmospheric carbon dioxide might play in the earth’s atmosphere.

      Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    Hi Jerry,
    Thanks for these detailed comments. I found your thought of CO2 acting as a nucleating particle very interesting and logical. You are aware of the work Henrik Svensmark of the National Space Institute in Denmark has completed along similar lines of cosmic rays nucleating rain drops. I see no reason why CO2 could not act the same way.
    You raise another interesting point with Henry’s Law (HL) and carbon dioxide not being an inert gas like nitrogen and oxygen – which is a defined constraint of the HL law. However, the relevant chemical reactions between CO2 and H2O are all reversible, which effectively makes the relationship act as an inert gas. This is further confirmed by EM Prof Lance Endersbee’s straight line equation discovery which exists between atmospheric CO2 and sea surface temperature.
    I assume the inorganic text book quotes would be based on distilled water reaction with CO2, but does not quote any change to pH? As mentioned above, the pH seems to be a critical consideration.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Jerry and Robert,
      Dr. Pollack experiments shows how EZ water expels chlorine and sodium ions and moves them to the main body of water. In evaporation I would expect the crystal shell of the droplet to keep CO2 from entering the droplet and any CO2 already dissolved to be confined to the interior of the droplet. Because of the negative charge of the EZ shell, positively charged particles (nuclei) would stick /to the surface of the droplet and be taken aloft but be unable to penetrate the crystal layer, just as the H3O+ ions in the interior of the droplet are unable to disrupt the crystal.
      In Dr Pollack’s book he boils water and measures the pH of the condensate and the body of water to check if protons are present in the interior of water. In this experiment I believe the water has CO2 dissolved in it. (Its ph starts below 7) and as the water boils the CO2 is removed from the water, raising the pH of the body of water and combines with the water gas, lowering the pH of the condensate.
      The question is, can CO2 or nuclei penetrate the crystal shell of a water droplet without destroying the droplet?
      Herb

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi again,
        Clarification: When I speak of droplets I was referring to the nano droplets produced in evaporation not rain droplets where the crystal structure has been destroyed (melted).
        Herb

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Robert,

      Cosmic rays, to my knowledge, nucleate rain droplets when the air has been supersaturated with water molecules after the condensation nuclei have been removed from the air. And another problem the meteorologists have had to explain how ordinary cloud droplets get converted into big enough raindrops to fall rapidly to the ground. Having more small cloud droplets is not going to solve that problem. For clouds are ‘seeded’ to promote the growth of fewer larger droplets (there is only so much ‘water’ from the smaller cloud droplets already in the cloud. But I admit I have not studied Henrik Svensmark’s ideas because of the preceding and the fact I do not have the skill to analysis his ideas.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Ddwieland

        |

        “Cosmic rays, to my knowledge, nucleate rain droplets when the air has been supersaturated with water molecules…”
        Indeed. That’s the principle on which the Wilson cloud chamber relies.

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    Ddwieland, Herb, Jerry,
    Some additional thoughts on these conversations:
    Dr. Pollack EZ shell appears to be a very delicate structure as shown when the micro balls of water disappear into the solvent, soon after formation.
    The comment “Dr. Pollack identifies this as a fourth phase of water and calls it the E Z zone. The water in this zone will expel colloidal particles and even salt ions making a clear layer of fresh water in a container of salt water. When electrodes are inserted into the E Z zone and the main body of water a current flows indicating this structure is a result of ions. The negative charge of the E Z zone is a result of hydroxyl ions combining with water molecules to form structures with liquid water and positive hydrogen ion in the body of the water.”
    These are very positive findings, but appear to be of academic interest, rather than having practical rain fall application, because the EZ shell is very delicate.
    “The question is, can CO2 or nuclei penetrate the crystal shell of a water droplet without destroying the droplet?”.
    It seems to me the pH is critical here, because if there are two droplets close together with a CO2 molecule in between. If the CO2 is absorbed by one droplet, that will lower the pH making that droplet slightly less accessible to further CO2. However, if the CO2 is absorbed by both droplets, the combined pH will be slightly higher for the combined droplets, thereby encouraging droplets to combine rather than stay separated. In other words the combined droplets have a lower acid potential than the seperate droplets.
    This should lead to rain drops combining until the pH reaches an acid limit, thereby removing one of the droplet combination mechanisms.
    Cosmic rays should be more applicable at this stage as noted
    “Cosmic rays, to my knowledge, nucleate rain droplets when the air has been supersaturated with water molecules…”

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Robert,
      I was thinking that CO2 penetrates the water at the top of the troposphere where the water crystals melt and the EZ layer is gone. As the micro droplets of evaporation rising in the atmosphere absorbing more energy, their shells would become stronger (and more negative (more OH- ions)) resisting CO2 penetration but you are correct that they could not survive being hit by cosmic particles and being converted to a liquid.
      Herb

Comments are closed